If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Angry Colin Powell wants answers on Iraq WMD lies

Former Secretary of States Colin Powell: He's not happy (AFP)

Ex-secretary of state Colin Powell called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain how he was given unreliable information which proved key to the US case for invading Iraq, the Guardian reported Wednesday.
Powell’s landmark speech to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, cited intelligence about Iraq leader Saddam Hussein’s bioweapons programme gained from a defector, codenamed Curveball.
But he has now admitted that he lied to topple the dictator, in an interview with the Guardian.
“It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable,” Powell told the British newspaper.
“The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) as to why this wasn’t known before the false information was put into the (report) sent to Congress, the president’s state of the union address and my 5 February presentation to the UN.”

Ex-secretary of state Colin Powell called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain how he was given unreliable information which proved key to the US case for invading Iraq, the Guardian reported Wednesday.
Powell’s landmark speech to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, cited intelligence about Iraq leader Saddam Hussein’s bioweapons programme gained from a defector, codenamed Curveball.
But he has now admitted that he lied to topple the dictator, in an interview with the Guardian.
“It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable,” Powell told the British newspaper.
“The question should be put to the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) as to why this wasn’t known before the false information was put into the (report) sent to Congress, the president’s state of the union address and my 5 February presentation to the UN.”

Popcorn is in the microwave Roger! This will be good. First, lets attack the loyalties and credibility of Gen. Powell. Maybe even say he wore a "costume" for the better part of 30 years?? The far right has been caught with their pants down (figuratively speaking only, in this case) and will divert, deny, and wiggle away from this the best they can. We won't forget though....we'll be paying for it for generations to come.

Popcorn is in the microwave Roger! This will be good. First, lets attack the loyalties and credibility of Gen. Powell. Maybe even say he wore a "costume" for the better part of 30 years?? The far right has been caught with their pants down (figuratively speaking only, in this case) and will divert, deny, and wiggle away from this the best they can. We won't forget though....we'll be paying for it for generations to come.

How much dust did you have to brush off of this? Come on find something that hasn't been beat to death already.

Well, lets see---- The story about "curveball" came out on February 15th 2011. And General Powell's responce to that was February 16th 2011 and todays date is February 18th, 2011 so the dust was what 2 days old and has not had time to settle yet.

Colin Powell demands answers over Curveball's WMD lies

Former US secretary of state asks why CIA failed to warn him over Iraqi defector who has admitted fabricating WMD evidence

Colin Powell, the US secretary of state at the time of the Iraq invasion, has called on the CIA and Pentagon to explain why they failed to alert him to the unreliability of a key source behind claims of Saddam Hussein's bio-weapons capability.Responding to the Guardian's revelation that the source, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi or "Curveball" as his US and German handlers called him, admitted fabricating evidence of Iraq's secret biological weapons programme, Powell said that questions should be put to the US agencies involved in compiling the case for war.In particular he singled out the CIA and the Defence Intelligence Agency – the Pentagon's military intelligence arm. Janabi, an Iraqi defector, was used as the primary source by the Bush administration to justify invading Iraq in March 2003. Doubts about his credibility circulated before the war and have been confirmed by his admission this week that he lied.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-cia-curveball

The BND traveled to a Gulf city, believed to be Dubai, to speak with his former boss at the Military Industries Commission in Iraq, Dr. Bassil Latif.

Latif strongly denied al-Janabi's claim of mobile bioweapons trucks and another allegation that 12 people had died during an accident at a secret bioweapons facility in Baghdad, according to the Guardian.

German officials confronted al-Janabi with his boss’s denial and did not contact him again until the end of May 2002, al-Janabi told the Guardian. Despite his earlier disputed statements, al-Janabi said, German authorities continued to take him seriously.

The BND continued to cooperate with the trained chemical engineer, and the false statements were eventually passed on to senior US policymakers by the intelligence services.

So the Germans (BND) decided (at that time) that al-Janabi was more credible than his old boss.

Imo, sort of like when an mob informant implicates a higher up in a crime, the cops go to that guy and he denies it (Surprise) but the cops continue to use the informant anyway. The info is passed on to another agency who accepts it at face value, rather than vetting it themselves, based on the reliability of the other agency, not necessarily the informant himself.
Then it finally gets to court and the informant then admits that he perjured himself from the beginning.
So does that imply the whole case was made in bad faith or that the informant was an exceptionally good liar?

"It's not that government is inherently stupid, although that's a debatable question."
Rand Paul CPAC speech 2011

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
________________________________________
Proud partner of (HR) WR SR Brian's 44Magnum Monster
co-owned by HR Rianne's 2nd Chance Hurricane Rebel

The BND traveled to a Gulf city, believed to be Dubai, to speak with his former boss at the Military Industries Commission in Iraq, Dr. Bassil Latif.

Latif strongly denied al-Janabi's claim of mobile bioweapons trucks and another allegation that 12 people had died during an accident at a secret bioweapons facility in Baghdad, according to the Guardian.

German officials confronted al-Janabi with his boss’s denial and did not contact him again until the end of May 2002, al-Janabi told the Guardian. Despite his earlier disputed statements, al-Janabi said, German authorities continued to take him seriously.

The BND continued to cooperate with the trained chemical engineer, and the false statements were eventually passed on to senior US policymakers by the intelligence services.

So the Germans (BND) decided (at that time) that al-Janabi was more credible than his old boss.

Imo, sort of like when an mob informant implicates a higher up in a crime, the cops go to that guy and he denies it (Surprise) but the cops continue to use the informant anyway. The info is passed on to another agency who accepts it at face value, rather than vetting it themselves, based on the reliability of the other agency, not necessarily the informant himself.
Then it finally gets to court and the informant then admits that he perjured himself from the beginning.
So does that imply the whole case was made in bad faith or that the informant was an exceptionally good liar?

...........huh..........???

You really want to bring up the issue of taking our European allies word on this matter??

The BND traveled to a Gulf city, believed to be Dubai, to speak with his former boss at the Military Industries Commission in Iraq, Dr. Bassil Latif.

Latif strongly denied al-Janabi's claim of mobile bioweapons trucks and another allegation that 12 people had died during an accident at a secret bioweapons facility in Baghdad, according to the Guardian.

German officials confronted al-Janabi with his boss’s denial and did not contact him again until the end of May 2002, al-Janabi told the Guardian. Despite his earlier disputed statements, al-Janabi said, German authorities continued to take him seriously.

The BND continued to cooperate with the trained chemical engineer, and the false statements were eventually passed on to senior US policymakers by the intelligence services.

So the Germans (BND) decided (at that time) that al-Janabi was more credible than his old boss.

Imo, sort of like when an mob informant implicates a higher up in a crime, the cops go to that guy and he denies it (Surprise) but the cops continue to use the informant anyway. The info is passed on to another agency who accepts it at face value, rather than vetting it themselves, based on the reliability of the other agency, not necessarily the informant himself.
Then it finally gets to court and the informant then admits that he perjured himself from the beginning.
So does that imply the whole case was made in bad faith or that the informant was an exceptionally good liar?

i have to wonder if the families of the sevicemen killed, wounded or MIA see it the way you do.

what a FIASCO!

and then there's the $ cost to consider., which grows by the day.......-Paul